In the 2003 case Larry D. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Nevada statute that allowed police to ask for identification from individuals they suspect are involved in criminal activity. The petitioner, Larry D. Hiibel, was arrested and convicted for refusing to identify himself during an investigation into a reported assault. He argued this violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures and his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. However, the court held that as long as officers have reasonable suspicion of criminal involvement under Terry v Ohio (1968), asking for identity does not infringe on constitutional protections because it is minimally intrusive yet significantly aids law enforcement purposes.

In the dissenting opinion for Larry D. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, et al., Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the majority's decision violated a citizen's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. He contended that requiring an individual to disclose their identity during a police stop could potentially incriminate them in future criminal proceedings. Furthermore, he expressed concern over how this ruling might disproportionately affect marginalized communities who are more likely to be stopped by law enforcement officers without reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. Justice Stevens also noted that there was no compelling state interest justifying this intrusion on personal privacy rights as it did not significantly aid law enforcement efforts or promote public safety.